W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > October to December 2020

Re: Advisory Techniques followup

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:30:46 +0200
To: Hidde de Vries <hidde@w3.org>, Andrew Arch <andrew@intopia.digital>, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Cc: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6bfd36a7-a594-5b76-4476-8efb4e753419@w3.org>
Hi Hidde,

I appreciate and respect your personal opinion.

Yet I personally find the currently proposed wording too negative and 
does not adequately represent the consensus view that is reflected in 
the AGWG wording. While some people might choose not to use Advisory 
Techniques, others use them and find them critical too. We need to be 
cognizant that lots of discussion has already gone into the consensus 
wording that AGWG defined. The closer we stay with this wording, the 
less likely it is that we will inadvertently re-open resolved issues. 
This would not be an easy discussion as there are many perspectives.

We should also remember that AGWG owns this content, and would need to 
be involved in such a discussion and decision-making.


On 15/10/2020 09:57, Hidde de Vries wrote:
> Hi all,
> I feel the current description on that Understanding page has so many caveats that, as a developer, I would stay away from using any Advisory Technique.
> Whether it be “suggested” or “potential”, caveats like “may not be sufficient”, “may not be accessibility supported”,  “may not be […] practical” and “not yet stable”, which all appear in this text, read to me as “do not use”. Other developers in last Friday’s EOWG meeting agreed with that.
> If the documentation of an API endpoint, JavaScript library or code example would include this, and I would look at using it for a client, I would not. Instead, I would look for something that gives me the confidence that it will work, that there are many benefits to it and that it is very stable. Many of our Advisory Techniques meet those criteria, and would be suitable to use in production, so I wonder if we may be able to say so with less caveats.
> Best,
> Hidde
>> On 14 Oct 2020, at 02:30, Andrew Arch <andrew@intopia.digital> wrote:
>> Hi Shawn,
>> I agree that some judicial bolding may assist. Also wondering about
>> * changing "suggested ways" to "potential ways" (especially given some of the bullets)
>> * adding in a note that they should be tested with users
>> Andrew
>> ____________________________________
>> Andrew Arch
>> Principal Accessibility Consultant, Intopia
>> p: +61 (0)447 389 137 | t: @Intopia  @amja
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, 10 October 2020 2:09 AM
>> To: Hidde de Vries <hidde@w3.org>; EOWG (E-mail) <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
>> Subject: Advisory Techniques followup
>> Hi EOWG,
>> In followup on the brief discussion on Advisory Techniques, please see:
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-advisory-head
>> which says:
>> [[
>> Advisory techniques are suggested ways to improve accessibility. They are often very helpful to some users, and may be the only way that some users can access some types of content.
>> Advisory techniques are not designated as sufficient techniques for various reasons such as:
>> 	* ...
>> Authors are encouraged to apply all of the techniques where appropriate to best address the widest range of users' needs.
>> ]]
>> I think the bullets get most people's attention, and the sentences are lost for some. Thus, the interpretation can be opposite of what is intended.
>> I wonder if bolding some words in the sentences might help?
>> Best,
>> ~Shawn

Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2020 08:30:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 15 October 2020 08:30:56 UTC